Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 4/2014

01-04-2014

How do SAGES members rate its guidelines?

Authors: William W. Hope, William Richardson, Robert Fanelli, Dimitrios Stefanidis

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The development of practice guidelines should take into consideration the opinions of end users. The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has implemented several changes in its guideline development and dissemination process based on previous end-user input.

Methods

An anonymous electronic survey was conducted via e-mail solicitation in September 2011. Respondents were asked to submit their feedback on the 26 guidelines produced by our society using a 32-item questionnaire and to suggest topics for new guideline development and areas of improvement.

Results

Responses from the survey were received by 494 people, of whom 474 (96 %) were clinicians; 373 (75 %) were general, laparoscopic, or bariatric surgeons; and 324 (65 %) held leadership roles within their institution. Most respondents were 35–44 years old (36 %), male (83 %), and had been in practice for over 10 years (54 %). A total of 383 (81 %) had used our guidelines, and, of those, 96 % agreed with their content. Guideline quality was rated 4.34; value 4.27; and ease of access 3.97 on a five-point Likert scale. The most commonly referenced guideline in the survey regarded surgical treatment of reflux (67 %), followed by laparoscopy during pregnancy (51 %). The three most common reasons guidelines were accessed were to update knowledge (68 %), to maximize patient care through evidence-based treatment (51 %), and to obtain a critical literature review.

Conclusions

The majority of respondents indicated they greatly value and agree with our guidelines. These results indicate that recent efforts to improve our guidelines have succeeded.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cook DJ, Greengold NL, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR (1997) The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 127:210–216PubMedCrossRef Cook DJ, Greengold NL, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR (1997) The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 127:210–216PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference (1993) The role of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (L.C.). Guidelines for clinical application. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc 7:369–370 (1993) The role of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (L.C.). Guidelines for clinical application. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc 7:369–370
3.
go back to reference Overby DW, Apelgren KN, Richardson W et al (2010) SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc 24:2368–2386PubMedCrossRef Overby DW, Apelgren KN, Richardson W et al (2010) SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc 24:2368–2386PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406PubMedCrossRef Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64:383–394PubMedCrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64:383–394PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A (2011) GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64:380–382PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A (2011) GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64:380–382PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams JW, Phillips B, Lelgemann M, Lethaby A, Bousquet J, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ, Group GW (2009) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy 64:669–677PubMedCrossRef Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams JW, Phillips B, Lelgemann M, Lethaby A, Bousquet J, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ, Group GW (2009) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy 64:669–677PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bennett CL, Somerfield MR, Pfister DG et al (2003) Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and health maintenance organizations. J Clin Oncol 21:937–941PubMedCrossRef Bennett CL, Somerfield MR, Pfister DG et al (2003) Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and health maintenance organizations. J Clin Oncol 21:937–941PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Stefanidis D, Richardson WS, Fanelli RD et al (2010) What is the utilization of the SAGES guidelines by its members? Surg Endosc 24:3210–3215PubMedCrossRef Stefanidis D, Richardson WS, Fanelli RD et al (2010) What is the utilization of the SAGES guidelines by its members? Surg Endosc 24:3210–3215PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. National Academies Press, Washington, DC Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
13.
go back to reference Leape LL, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Piana RN, Gatsonis C, Epstein AM (2003) Adherence to practice guidelines: the role of specialty society guidelines. Am Heart J 145:19–26PubMedCrossRef Leape LL, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Piana RN, Gatsonis C, Epstein AM (2003) Adherence to practice guidelines: the role of specialty society guidelines. Am Heart J 145:19–26PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, Dijkstra R, Donaldson C (2004) Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 8:iii–iv, 1–72 Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, Dijkstra R, Donaldson C (2004) Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 8:iii–iv, 1–72
Metadata
Title
How do SAGES members rate its guidelines?
Authors
William W. Hope
William Richardson
Robert Fanelli
Dimitrios Stefanidis
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3296-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Surgical Endoscopy 4/2014 Go to the issue